Allard v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd [2024] EWHC 2227 (KB) (28 August 2024)

Allard v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd [2024] EWHC 2227 (KB) (28 August 2024)

The judge's findings on quantum and causation were based on acceptance of the claimant's evidence and expert opinion, and there was no error of principle or plainly erroneous reasoning justifying appellate interference. The judge's case management decision to permit further evidence for special damages was within his discretion.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2227 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Wayne Allard; Defendant/appellant: Govia Thameslink Railway Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Causation, Quantum, Damages, Case Management, Expert Evidence
Tort Personal Injury Employment Negligence Causation Quantum Damages Case Management +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wayne Allard

Claimant/respondent

Govia Thameslink Railway Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in awarding £27,000 general damages for permanent exacerbation of asthma
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in permitting further evidence for special damages and Smith v Manchester award

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's findings on quantum and causation were based on acceptance of the claimant's evidence and expert opinion, and there was no error of principle or plainly erroneous reasoning justifying appellate interference. The judge's case management decision to permit further evidence for special damages was within his discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • General damages of £27,000 to claimant upheld
  • Further formal evidence permitted for special damages via affidavit